Summary
The TADA convictions were set aside for invalid statutory approvals and sanctions, involuntary confessions and unreliable identification evidence. The authorities had not properly considered material establishing the requisite terrorist intent. The seriousness of the killing could not dispense with mandatory safeguards or supply legally admissible proof.
Issues
- Whether TADA approvals and sanctions reflected proper application of mind.
- Whether the confessions and identification supported the convictions.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(1) and 20-A, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987Required terrorist intent and mandatory prior approval and sanction safeguards. (¶ 5–20)
Held
- The sanctioning authority lacked or failed to consider relevant material, including the only confession said to disclose terrorist intent, and had not examined the entire record. The approvals and sanctions were invalid; the mandatory defect was not cured by Section 465 CrPC. (¶¶ 7–14, 19–20)
- The contradictory confessions were not voluntary. Identification after publication of the accused’s photographs was unreliable in this case. Other convictions could survive only on legally admissible independent evidence, not the excluded TADA confessions. (¶¶ 9, 24–28)
Result
Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants ordered released unless required in another case.